Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
East EPO
Community School
Needs Assessment Report
Fall 2018
Jason Taylor, East Community Coordinator
Nahoko Kawakyu O’Connor, Ph.D., Warner School of Education
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Managing the Work .................................................................................................................................. 7
Background about East ................................................................................................................................. 8
East EPO Programmatic Elements ............................................................................................................ 8
School structure .................................................................................................................................... 8
Extended school day ............................................................................................................................. 8
Curricular rigor and relevance ............................................................................................................ 10
Focus on math and literacy ................................................................................................................. 10
Professional development ................................................................................................................... 10
Credit recovery .................................................................................................................................... 10
Expanded social emotional support .................................................................................................... 10
Family group ....................................................................................................................................... 10
English language learner support ........................................................................................................ 10
Family engagement ............................................................................................................................. 10
Community school .............................................................................................................................. 10
East EPO Key Indicator Improvements .................................................................................................. 11
Graduation rate. ................................................................................................................................... 11
Freshman Academy performance. ...................................................................................................... 12
Regents exams. ................................................................................................................................... 13
Attendance. ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Behavior and discipline. ...................................................................................................................... 15
Collaborative partnerships and agencies ................................................................................................. 17
Conclusion of East’s Background ........................................................................................................... 18
Background about Community Schools ..................................................................................................... 19
The Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 20
Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Data Collection Design ........................................................................................................................... 22
Archival data review. .......................................................................................................................... 22
Focus groups. ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Family phone interviews. .................................................................................................................... 26
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Strengths and Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 27
3
Key Participants ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Project Management ............................................................................................................................... 30
Timeline .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Finding 1: What strengths/assets exist at East? ...................................................................................... 32
Collaborative partners, programs, and supports .................................................................................. 32
Staff is strong and supportive.............................................................................................................. 32
Focus on relationships ......................................................................................................................... 32
Finding 2: What challenges/barriers exist at East? ................................................................................. 33
Internal and external communication .................................................................................................. 33
School-family relations ....................................................................................................................... 33
Restorative practice refinement .......................................................................................................... 33
Finding 3: What strengths/assets exist in the surrounding community? ................................................. 33
Local neighborhood ............................................................................................................................ 33
Recreation Centers .............................................................................................................................. 34
Interest and Positivity around East’s success ...................................................................................... 34
Finding 4: What challenges/barriers exist in the surrounding community?............................................ 34
Poverty, violence, trauma, access to affordable housing, incarceration, substance abuse .................. 34
Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 34
Need for more community connections .............................................................................................. 34
Thematic Findings .................................................................................................................................. 35
Additional Findings ................................................................................................................................ 36
Benefit and need of sharing stories ..................................................................................................... 36
Need for rigorous curriculum, academic preparedness, and high expectations .................................. 36
Alternative paths for scholars ............................................................................................................. 36
Mentoring ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Conceptual Tensions ............................................................................................................................... 37
Tension between “kids who don’t care” and “kids who can’t care” ................................................... 37
Tension between holding scholars accountable and supporting scholars ........................................... 37
Tension between family involvement as deficit vs. family involvement as asset ............................... 37
Tension between in-school messages vs. out-of-school messages ..................................................... 38
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 39
4
Recommendation 1: Improve Communication and Sharing Stories ....................................................... 39
A.) Establish a central clearing house of information for each stakeholder group. ............................ 40
B.) More fully leverage existing internal communication assets. ....................................................... 41
C.) More fully leverage existing external communication assets. ...................................................... 41
D.) Designate a communications point person or committee. ............................................................ 42
E.) Break down silos of internal misunderstanding. ........................................................................... 43
F.) Refine method to collect and store parent/family contact information. ........................................ 43
G.) Bring back the “Purple Locker.” ................................................................................................... 43
H.) Explore collaboration with UR CUES for “Story Telling.” .......................................................... 43
Recommendation 2: Build School-Family Relations .............................................................................. 44
A.) Expand the definition of family engagement, and create mechanisms to support engagement.... 44
B.) Increase social events that bring families together, such as family fun nights. ............................ 45
C.) Provide and increase access to services for adults. ....................................................................... 45
Recommendation 3: Expand Community Connections .......................................................................... 45
A.) Increase scholar community service opportunities and a service-going culture. .......................... 45
B.) Connect with local employers. ...................................................................................................... 46
C.) Designate an alumni coordinator or committee to connect with alumni. ...................................... 46
D.) Establish East as a true community center. ................................................................................... 46
E.) Report neighborhood events back to FACE committee. ............................................................... 47
F.) Develop scholar mentorship opportunities. ................................................................................... 47
Recommendation 4: Refine Restorative Practices .................................................................................. 47
A.) Increase communication and closure loop on restorative practices. ............................................. 47
B.) Increase support of teaching staff through the restorative process. .............................................. 48
C.) Increase understanding of restorative practice for all stakeholders. ............................................. 48
Recommendation 5: Increase academic rigor, relevance, and accountability ......................................... 49
A.) Articulate and make transparent what East’s curriculum entails. ................................................. 49
B.) Promote a culture that values learning. ......................................................................................... 49
C.) Hold scholars accountable to higher standards. ............................................................................ 50
D.) Reflect on scholar identification of the effects of “disruptive” scholars. ..................................... 50
Recommendation 6: Explore transportation alternatives ........................................................................ 50
Recommendation 7: Acknowledge systemic barriers and social inequality ........................................... 51
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix A: NCCS Needs Assessment Toolkit ......................................................................................... 54
5
Appendix B: NCCS Archival Data Collection Table ................................................................................. 59
Appendix C: East CSNA Team Focus Group Protocol .............................................................................. 60
Appendix D: East CSNA Team Parent/Family Phone Interview Protocol ................................................. 67
Appendix E: List of Findings ...................................................................................................................... 69
References ................................................................................................................................................... 79
Contact ........................................................................................................................................................ 79
6
Introduction
Community schools are a strategy for organizing school and community resources
around student success. Community schools define student success holistically, meaning not
only through academics but social-emotional development, extracurricular involvement, and
college, career, and civic readiness. Community schools value input from school and community
members inclusively, meaning coalitions are built that include students, parents/families,
neighbors, businesses and organizations, and school staff and faculty. In doing so, the
community school strategy creates partnerships, policies, and programs that support students
success.
A community school’s strategy is informed by a “needs assessment.” A needs assessment
is a systematized process that determines which strengths/assets and needs/barriers exist in a
school community. The process often includes reviewing archival data, administering surveys,
holding focus groups, and conducting interviews. The needs assessment findings inform which
partnerships, policies, and programs a community school will pursue in order to support student
success.
The following report outlines the needs assessment conducted in the Fall of 2018 for East
EPO Upper and Lower Schools in Rochester, New York. The needs assessment team strove to
solicit input from as many stakeholders as possible, including scholars, parents/families, staff,
faculty, community partners, and neighbors. Each of these partners provided valuable insight on
the quality of and direction for East’s community school strategy. Based on the findings of the
needs assessment, we present recommendations on the future direction of the community school
strategy at East EPO. This report is transparent and public, meant to collectively guide the
community school work by sharing leadership and accountability for results. This report is
organized in six major parts: 1.) Background of East, 2.) Background of Community Schools, 3.)
Methods, 4.) Findings, 5.) Recommendations, and 6.) Conclusion.
7
Managing the Work
East’s Community Coordinator, led a team of fifteen people made up of East
parents/families, staff, faculty, community partners, and neighbors through the facilitation of the
needs assessment. This team formed the Community School Needs Assessment (CSNA) team
responsible for conducting a needs assessment based on the framework from the National Center
for Community Schools needs assessment toolkit. The team met biweekly at 4:00 p.m. at East
between July and December 2018. During meetings, the CSNA team collaboratively made
decisions on the implementation of the needs assessment, analyzed archival and focus group
data, and drafted findings and recommendations.
Throughout the process, the CSNA team analyzed three year’s worth of archival data,
conducted 25 focus groups with 216 stakeholders, and made around 150 phone calls that
connected with 33 East parents/families for phone interviews. Analysis of focus archival, focus
group, and interview data occurred during biweekly CSNA team meetings, in addition to
qualitative analysis and coding of focus group notes by Jason Taylor and Dr. Joanne Larson and
Dr. Nahoko Kawakyu O’Connor from the University of Rochester’s Warner School of
Education. Recommendations based upon the findings were collaboratively created with the
CSNA team and different stakeholders.
This report was written by Jason Taylor with assistance from Dr. Nahoko Kawakyu
O’Connor and through an iterative process of review and feedback provided by the CSNA team.
In addition to this full written report, a shorter executive summary version will be made
transparent and public to East decision-making bodies, East staff and faculty, East
parents/families, and the wider community. The purpose of this report is to advance East’s
community school strategy by leveraging shared leadership and accountability for the
organization of resources that support scholar learning and development.
All protocols and materials are included in the appendix section of this report.
8
Background about East
East EPO Upper and Lower Schools is the full name for “East EPO,” also known as
“East.” East is an urban school located in Rochester, NY, in the Rochester City School District.
East serves scholars grade 6 through 8 in the East Lower School (LS) and scholars grade 9
through 12 in the East Upper School (US). Also, East is in partnership with the University of
Rochester which serves as its Educational Partnership Organization (EPO). The partnership with
the University of Rochester started in 2014, the result of years of persistently struggling
performance at East as determined by the New York State Education Department. The purpose
of the EPO is to create comprehensive and sustainable urban education reform that leads to East's
scholars' success and creates a model of urban reform for other schools to follow. Therefore, East
is uniquely positioned as a 6-12th grade urban public school in Rochester, NY, whose leadership
and guidance is provided by the University of Rochester.
Currently, during the 2017-2018 academic year, East serves approximately 1000 scholars
and has roughly 170 staff members. The student body is racially and ethnically diverse, yet it is
more economically homogeneous, with nearly 80% of scholars identified as economically
disadvantaged. East’s scholars all have different skills, abilities, and backgrounds, but each
scholar is capable of success.
East EPO Programmatic Elements
Determining how to serve such a student body was a major focus of the design of the
EPO between East and the University of Rochester. When the EPO started, a comprehensive
needs assessment was conducted in order to determine the strengths and challenges existing in
the East community. This process was also meant to engage the East community in designing
and structuring the new East. Scholars, parents/families, East staff and faculty, neighbors,
community members, and University of Rochester staff and faculty all contributed to the design
and structure of the new East. The full list of changes can be found in the East EPO Plan;
however, some changes, which still continue, are outlined below:
School structure - Organizing East around the Lower School (grades 6-8), the Freshman
Academy (grade 9), and the Upper School (grade 9-12) in order to focus developmentally
appropriate resources and coordinate school leadership and governance
Extended school day - Extending the instructional day by 30 minutes in order to engage
scholars in more instructional time
9
Table 1: East Demographic Information
2017-2018 Enrollment Data
Lower
School
Upper
School
East EPO
(total)
RCSD NYS
# of Students 362 667 1029 27,500 2,650,000
Grade Level
6th 17.1% - 17.1% 6.9% 7.4%
7th 42.3% - 42.3% 6.3% 7.4%
8th 40.3% - 40.3% 6.3% 7.5%
9th - 34.5% 34.5% 9.8% 8.1%
10th - 23.7% 23.7% 7.2% 7.9%
11th - 17.5% 17.5% 4.9% 7.3%
12th - 24.3% 24.3% 5.9% 7.2%
Sex
Male 56.9% 51.7% 53.4% 51% 51.3%
Female 43.1% 48.3% 46.5% 49% 48.7%
Race & Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska
Native
0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.7%
Asian 3% 3.9% 3.6% 3.7% 9.4%
Black 55.3% 55.5% 55.4% 55.8% 17.3%
Hispanic or Latinx 33.4% 30.9% 31.9% 27.6% 26.5%
White 9.1% 8.8% 8.9% 9.6% 44%
Additional Demographic Information
English Language Learners 10.8% 17.1% 14.9% 15% 9%
Students with Disabilities 14.6% 14.2% 14.4% 20.1% 17%
Economically Disadvantaged 78.2* 78.6%* 78.5%* 83.9%* 55%
*East has higher economically disadvantaged rates than shown because these rates do not include incomplete paperwork
Sources: Rochester City School District (2018). Powerschool Database., New York State Department of Education
(2018). https://data.nysed.gov
10
Curricular rigor and relevance - Designing a rigorous curriculum that holds scholars to
high standards, that is inquiry-based to encourage scholars to drive their own learning,
and is culturally relevant with respect to scholars’ backgrounds
Focus on math and literacy - Mandatory literacy classes for scholars grade 6-9 and
doubling math and ELA for most grades in order to support the development of crucial
math and reading skills
Professional development - Offering ongoing professional development on best teaching
practices, many of which are designed and led by East teachers
Credit recovery - Offering multiple pathways for credit recovery, including compressed
classes and online learning, in order to catch scholars back up to grade level
Expanded social emotional support - Adoption of restorative practices, trauma-informed
teaching, and at least one full time on-site counselor and social worker per grade level
Family group - Establishing a daily “family group” with at least ten scholars and two
adults to support the sense of belonging, the building of positive relationships,
development of healthy habits, and empowerment of all to have a voice
English language learner support - Creating a continuum of supports for English language
learners, such as an enhanced dual language program and professional development for
teachers serving English language-learning students
Family engagement - Redefining families as assets by valuing the multiple means
through which families engage in their child’s education and creating opportunities for
shared decision making
Community school - Creating intentional partnerships between school and community
resources in order to meet identified scholars needs, in addition to reconceptualizing the
school as a neighborhood and community hub
11
East EPO Key Indicator Improvements
As a result of these programmatic changes, East has made several improvements. For
example, there have been promising improvements in the key indicators of graduation rate,
freshman performance, Regents exam scores, attendance, scholar behavior, and more.
Graduation rate.
The four-year graduation rate is a commonly cited educational statistic, and it measures
the percent of a cohort of students who successfully graduate “on time,” meaning within four
years of the start of their freshman year. In order to graduate in New York State, scholars must
earn 22 credits and pass five regents exams throughout their high school career. A “cohort” is a
group of students identified by the year in which they began their freshman year. A “class of” is
a group of students identified by the “on time” year in which they are expected to graduate,
which is four years after their cohort year. Therefore, the 2010 cohort is the same thing as the
class of 2014. If a scholar does not graduate on time, meaning with the rest of their cohort, then
the four-year graduation rate goes down. If a scholar does not graduate on time it does not mean
that they will never graduate. Instead, the scholar can continue to complete academic
requirements in subsequent semesters, or the scholar can find alternative pathways and programs.
For example, the five-year graduation rate measures the percentage of students from a cohort
who graduated within five years of starting their freshman year. The trend of East’s graduation
rate over the past four years shows promise as seen in Table 2 and represented in Figure 1:
Table 2: Graduation Rate by Cohort
Cohort Graduation Year Graduation Rate
2011 (prior to EPO) 2015 (prior to EPO) 33.3%
2012 (prior to EPO) 2016 40.2%
2013 (prior to EPO) 2017 45.3%
2014 (prior to EPO) 2018 60.6%
12
Figure 1: Graduation Rate by Cohort and # of Years served by EPO
The 2011 cohort, which graduated in 2015 before the start of the EPO, had a graduation
rate of 33.3%. The 2014 cohort, which graduated in 2018, had a graduation rate of 60.6%,
showing remarkable improvement. Indeed, the four-year graduation rate for the 2014 cohort is
higher than the six-year graduation rate for the 2011 cohort. As of the authorship of this report,
the Rochester City School District’s four-year graduation rate is around 52%. The graduate rate
across the entire State of New York is around 80%.
Freshman Academy performance.
East’s improved graduation rate correlates with other improvements. The freshman year
is a crucial year for high school success as it is the first year most scholars start to earn credits
towards graduation. A scholar who successfully completes their freshman year will commonly
have earned around five credits. Off-track completion of the freshman year is highly correlated
with scholars ultimately not graduating from high school. The trend of scholar performance in
the Freshman Academy shows promise as seen in Table 3 and Figure 2:
Table 3: Freshman Year Academic Progress Performance Indicators
Cohort (years with EPO) 2014 (0) 2015 (1) 2016 (2) 2017 (3)
5+ Credits Earned 48.8% 80.2% 77.4% 73.3%
Passing Algebra Regents 26.5% 45.2% 45.3% 55.1%
Passing Science Regents 30.0% 35.5% 24.8% 47.3%
33.30%40.20%
45.30%
60.60%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
2011 (0) 2012 (1) 2013 (2) 2014 (3)
Gra
duation R
ate
Cohort Year (# of years served by EPO)
Graduation Rate by Cohort
13
Figure 2: Freshman Year Academic Progress Indicators
To put things into perspective, the aforementioned 2014 cohort graduated with a four-
year rate of 60.6%, while only 48.8% of that cohort advanced from their freshman year on-track.
The most recent 2017 cohort had 73.3% of its members advance on-track from their freshman
year, and had nearly 1.5-to-2 times as many of its members pass the algebra and science regents
exams. Both of these are promising indicators for future graduation rates.
Regents exams.
In order to graduate from high school, scholars must pass at least five regents exams with
a score of 65 or higher. Scholars must pass at least one exam from the following academic
subject areas: math, science, social studies, and ELA. Regents exams are administered three
times each year, and the intended timing of when scholars take a particular exam depends upon
when scholars complete their corresponding course throughout the semester. For example,
scholars often take the U.S. history exam in their junior year, upon completion of the U.S.
history course. By senior year, most scholars will have taken at least one regents exam in each of
the four aforementioned fields. The trend of scholar regents passing rate at the start of their
senior years shows promise as seen in Table 4 and Figure 3:
48.8%
80.2% 77.4%73.3%
26.5%
45.2% 45.3%
55.1%
30.0%35.5%
24.8%
47.3%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2014 (0) 2015 (1) 2016 (2) 2017 (3)
% o
n t
rack o
r passin
g
Cohort Year (# of years served by EPO)
Freshman Year Academic Progress Indicators
5+ Credits Earned Passing Algebra Regents Passing Science Regents
14
Table 4: Regents Exam Passing Rate for Seniors at Beginning of Senior Year
Cohort (years with EPO)
2012 (1) 2013 (2) 2014 (3) 2015 (4)
Math 48.7% 47.1% 56.3% 70.5%
Science 36.4% 44.1% 49.5% 55.7%
ELA 30.9% 32.1% 35.6% 55.1%
Global History 16.7% 25.6% 29.8% 36.7%
American History 30.9% 23.2% 33.7% 38.6%
Graduation Rate 40.2% 45.3% 60.6% -
Figure 3: Regents Exam Passing Rate for Seniors at Beginning of Senior Year
While there continues to be room for improvement, particularly in social studies, the
majority of the 2015 cohort entered their senior year with over half of their Regents exam
requirements completed and current trend is positively associated with the number of years
served in partnership with the EPO.
70.5%
55.7%
55.1%
36.7%
38.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
2012 (1) 2013 (2) 2014 (3) 2015 (4)
% o
n t
rack o
r gra
duation r
ate
Cohort Year (# of years served by EPO)
Regents Exam Passing Rate for Seniors at Beginning of Senior Year
Math Science ELA Global History American History Graduation Rate
15
Attendance.
Attendance is one of the most important determinants of educational success. Attendance
is often measured in terms of Average Daily Attendance (ADA), or the percent of the student
body that is in attendance for the school day. Attendance is highly correlated with graduation, as
each day of missed instruction adds up: missing just two school days a month is equivalent to
missing 10% of the entire year. There are any number of factors that cause scholars not to attend
school, more of which will be discussed in the findings section of this report. The trend of East’s
overall attendance rate shows promise:
Table 5: Attendance Rate by Academic Year (# of Years with EPO)
2013-2014
(pre EPO)
2014-2015
(pre EPO)
2015-2016
(Y1 of EPO)
2016-2017
(Y2 of EPO)
2017-2018
(Y3 of EPO)
Lower School 77.6% 77.0%
89.4% 89.6% 90.0%
Upper School 78.3% 78.3% 82.2%
Figure 4: Average Daily Attendance by School Year (# of Years with EPO)
Behavior and discipline.
There are many factors that make a school’s culture and climate one that is healthy for
learning and development. In the event that scholar behavior disrupts the learning environment,
the scholar may be removed from class or school. A school’s Code of Conduct is what is used
when a disruptive incident occurs in order to determine the proper response to restoring learning
77.6% 77.0%
89.4% 89.6% 90.0%
77.6% 77.0%
78.3% 78.3%82.2%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2013-2014(pre EPO)
2014-2015(pre EPO)
2015-2016(Y1)
2016-2017(Y2)
2017-2018(Y3)
Avera
ge D
aily
Attendance R
ate
Cohort Year (# of years served by EPO)
Average Daily Attendance
Lower School Upper School
16
and addressing misconduct. In some instances, it may be appropriate to remove a scholar from a
classroom or the school entirely. In doing so, scholars may be removed for a short term (a period
of one to five days) or for a long term (a period of six days to a year). Scholars may be removed
to an in-school location, an out-of-school location, or to an alternative program. While holding
scholars accountable for their actions and ensuring a safe learning environment for all scholars is
a priority, high suspension rates also means scholars are missing instructional time, which in turn
has implications for their success in school.
The trend in East’s disciplinary data shows a dramatic decrease in the number of
incidents and suspensions, showing promise in all areas of disciplinary actions over the years:
Table 6: Behavioral Incidents by School Year
School Year (# of years with EPO)
2014-2015 (0) 2015-2016 (Y1) 2016-2017 (Y2) 2017-2018 (Y3)
Incidents 1629 681 323 294
Short Term 2374 817 425 349
Long Term 94 39 22 20
In School 1423 660 371 326
Out of School 968 167 54 23
In Alt. Program 77 29 22 20
Total Suspensions 2468 856 447 369
Figure 5: Behavioral Incidents by School Year
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2014-2015 (0) 2015-2016 (Y1) 2016-2017 (Y2) 2017-2018 (Y3)
Count
School Year (# of Years with EPO)
Behavioral Incident Results
Incidents Short Term Long Term
In School Out of School In Alt. Program
Total Suspensions
17
Overall, there was an 85% reduction in suspensions in the 2017-2018 school year as
compared to the year before the EPO began. The less suspensions that occur, the more scholars
can remain engaged in the learning process. Restorative practices have helped to create a culture
shift at East, one that builds relationships and proactively prevents problems from occurring in
the first place.
Collaborative partnerships and agencies
One of the central tenets of community schooling is to create partnerships that align
school and community resources around student success. However, these partnerships should be
based on identified needs, not out of habit or convenience; effective scholar supports are based
on quality, not quantity. Truly effective partnerships share leadership and accountability for
scholar success. East has been intentional with which partnerships it pursues with community
agencies and organizations. Some partnerships are informal and short term while others are long
term and involve a substantial exchange of resources and information. A number of East’s on-
site and long-term partnerships are highlighted below:
Table 7: Collaborative Partnerships and Agencies by Area of Support
Area of Support Partner Description
Academic support
Hillside Work-Scholarship
Connection, Monroe Community
College Liberty Partnerships
Program, Urban League GEAR UP,
University of Rochester David T.
Kearns Center Pre-College Programs
Tutoring, academic
assistance, college
preparation, expanded
learning opportunities
Dental health University of Rochester Dental
Center SmileMobile
Free and comprehensive
dental care
Family engagement Ibero-American Action League
Family Service Assistant Program
Family support and adult
education
Holistic scholar support Center for Youth Student Support
Center
Holistic scholar support
and drop-in center
Mental health Villa of Hope Therapeutic mental health
support
Mentoring
Champion Academy Extreme
Mentoring and Empowerment
Initiative
Mentoring, checkups,
motivation, and support
Nutrition Food and Resource Pantry (with
assistance from Foodlink)
Emergency food and
resource assistance
Physical and mental
health
University of Rochester School of
Nursing School-based Health Center
Free and comprehensive
physical and mental health
care
18
The findings and recommendations section of this report highlight other areas and
organizations through which East scholars and the surrounding community may benefit through
partnerships.
Conclusion of East’s Background
East is a dynamic urban public school in Rochester, NY, going through a number of
changes as a result of the partnership with the University of Rochester as its EPO. East’s scholars
are many and diverse. A comprehensive needs assessment was conducted at the start of the EPO
in order to determine how to best serve East’s scholars and families and also in order to solicit
community feedback on structuring the new East. A number of strategies and programs were put
in place to support scholars. After three full years of the EPO, data indicates that things are
moving in the right direction in a number of key areas, more of which were not covered in the
previous few pages.
While there is positive momentum, there is still much work to be done. Educational
results take time, consistency, and commitment. Especially when such changes are cultural and
institutional, they require the trust and collaboration from many different stakeholders in order
for positive results to come to fruition. Continuing to leverage the community school strategy is
one area where positive growth can continue at East. According to the best practices of
community schooling, the needs assessment process is re-conducted every three years to assess
current needs and strengths. The purpose of the report is to present the results of the most recent
needs assessment findings, conducted during the Fall of 2018.
19
Background about Community Schools
East is a community school designed to support the holistic needs of its scholars.
Community schools are a strategy for organizing school and community resources around
student success. The premise behind community schooling is simple: students do not enter
school buildings as blank slates. Instead, students come to school with their own backgrounds,
strengths, and challenges. Therefore, in order to achieve their mission of providing an academic
education that meets students’ individual needs, schools often must provide resources that go
beyond their own capacity. These resources are in partnership with parents/families, neighbors,
and community members, all of whom are stakeholders in the educational process and can
positively support student learning and development. The philosophy behind community
schooling is that shared leadership, decision-making, accountability, and decision-making
between schools and communities creates better student outcomes. Especially where social
inequalities are re-created if not exacerbated, the community school strategy can be an equalizing
force in society, one that challenges inequalities by building collaborative coalitions that share
resources and responsibility for the welfare of youth.
The community school strategy has been variously adopted throughout the history of
American schooling. For example, in the early 1900s educational reformer John Dewey thought
of “schools as social centers,” places where school-community partnerships could support
students for success and provide families resources which they could not access elsewhere. Yet it
is common for the history of modern community schooling to begin in the mid-1990s with the
Children’s Aid Society and their establishment of community schools in Washington Heights,
New York City. Urban planners identified substantial and systemic unmet needs in the lives of
students in Washington Heights. As a result, the Children’s Aid Society, in collaboration with
the New York City Department of Education and other community organizations, decided to use
existing school buildings as full-service assets, establishing within them the resources to properly
support student needs and the needs of the surrounding community. Following the success of this
approach, the Children’s Aid Society launched the National Center for Community Schools
(NCCS) in 1994. Today, the NCCS offers resources and guides to promote the community
school strategy across the country.
Community schools are becoming increasingly popular as a strategy for addressing
significant economic and social realities which are counterproductive to healthy student learning
and development. Poverty, segregation and all the concomitant barriers that come with them are
harmful to student academic performance. By reinvesting in communities and in sharing
leadership and accountability for student success, the NCCS posits that community schools can
achieve the following key results:
● Children are ready to enter school
● Students succeed academically
● Students are actively involved in learning and the community
● Students are healthy physically, socially, and emotionally
20
● Students live and learn in stable and supportive environments
● Families are actively involved in children’s education
● Communities are desirable places to live
In order to achieve these results, community schools can adopt a variety of strategies and
partnerships tailored to their individual needs. In general, community schools follow four
strategies: (1) provide integrated student supports that meet students’ holistic academic, social
emotional, health and wellness, and civic needs, (2) offer expanded learning time and
opportunities through multiple pathways and culturally and developmentally appropriate
resources, (3) engage families and community members as assets in the educational process, and
(4) build collaborative leadership and practice as a core feature of community schooling (Maier,
Daniel, Oakes, & Lam, 2017). However, it is important to note that there is no official certificate
or honorarium granted to a school that “becomes” a community school. A school “becomes” a
community school when it adopts the aforementioned general tenets and philosophies of
community schooling, yet tailors them to meet the specific needs of their own community. No
community school is exactly the same. Community schools are meant to be different because
they are meant to meet the unique needs of their students by leveraging the unique assets of their
community.
The Needs Assessment
A needs assessment is a systematized process used to understand and create a profile of a
community school’s needs. As mentioned, a comprehensive need assessment was conducted at
the start of the East EPO. For East’s second needs assessment, the NCCS needs assessment
toolkit (Appendix A) was used to guide the process. The NCCS’ toolkit outlines several key
steps for conducting a needs assessment:
● Assemble the team
● Review archival data
● Perform an initial data analysis
● Administer surveys
● Conduct key informant interviews
● Hold focus groups
● Perform a final analysis of the data
● Report the results
The results of a needs assessment are meant to guide a school’s community school
strategy for a number of years. The guide can change overtime to reflect unforeseen
circumstances, but, in general, the rigorous process used to produce the needs assessment should
be respected. In many ways, a needs assessment is seen as a “constitution” that guides a school’s
community school strategy.
21
Needs assessments produce two results: findings and recommendations. Findings are
based directly from the analysis of archival data, surveys, interviews, and focus groups.
Recommendations are collaboratively made with stakeholders based upon the findings with the
goal of improving student outcomes. Needs assessments are meant to be transparent and public.
They are meant for stakeholders to learn from in order to understand and support the community
school strategy. Ultimately, they are meant to promote key tenets of community schooling:
shared leadership, decision making, and accountability for student success.
22
Methods
This needs assessment was conducted between July - December 2018. A team of people
were assembled to join the East Community School Needs Assessment (CSNA) team. This team
was responsible for implementing the needs assessment using the National Center for
Community Schools (NCCS) needs assessment toolkit framework (Appendix A). Team members
were approached due to their knowledge of the school and the community, because their work
was related to community schooling, and, for most, because they did not already sit on the
school’s Community Engagement Team (i.e. FACE Committee).
The East EPO CSNA team used a combination of data sources to inform this assessment,
including archival data review and new focus group data captured during the Fall of 2018. Using
a participatory process, the project was led by East’s Community Coordinator, Jason Taylor, and
the rest of CSNA team (see Key Participants section below). The CSNA team met bi-weekly at
East for a total of eleven meetings between July and December. Each meeting was at least one
hour long, and team members planned logistics, analyzed data, and drafted findings and
recommendations. This section describes the methods used to collect data and the key
participants involved in the process.
Data Collection Design
Following the key steps outlined in the NCCS needs assessment toolkit (Appendix A),
the CSNA team used a sequential data collection method. First, archival data was reviewed by
the CSNA team. This informed what information was already known and which further
information should be gathered. Based on experience of survey fatigue and the importance of
hearing from community members directly, the team decided that focus groups were the best
method for further data collection. Collaboratively, a focus group protocol was developed to ask
stakeholders about the assets and needs of East and the assets and needs of the community.
Archival data review.
Archival data is data that schools already possess about their students, policies, and
programs. Schools handle lots of data from a variety of sources. Therefore, intentionality must
drive which data are analyzed and what inferences are drawn, otherwise key data points may go
unnoticed, or the sheer volume of information may make analysis incomprehensible. Data-driven
decision-making is widely seen as the gold standard in today’s educational environment.
The CSNA team began the archival data collection process by using the NCCS’ archival
data collection table (Appendix B). The data collection table is organized around nine different
categories (e.g. “Schools are engaged with families and communities”) with several data points
for each category (e.g. “Percentage of parents who agreed that the school considered
communication with them to be an essential part of their student’s education”). The archival data
collection table is meant to offer a framework for analyzing archival data around some of the
23
main tenets of community schooling. Schools are encouraged to supplement the table with other
data points and indicators according to their needs.
The CSNA team completed the archival data collection table using a variety of sources.
One primary source was SPA (SQL Performance Analyzer), an Oracle-powered database used
throughout the Rochester City School District which houses data, including student
demographics, attendance, suspension rates, grade-to-grade mobility rates, and more. SPA is
seen as the school’s most reliable internal data source. The second primary data source was three
year’s worth of climate survey data. In each Spring since 2016, East has administered distinct
school climate surveys to teachers, administrators/staff, scholars, and parents/families. The
surveys have been adapted with permission from the climate surveys from the University of
Chicago’s Consortium on Chicago School Research. Following survey distribution, University of
Rochester Warner School of Education faculty analyze the results for statistical significance.
Each of the surveys have more than 65 questions, most of which follow a four point Likert scale,
that provide data points around several themes (e.g. “To what extent do teachers try to
understand your family’s concerns about your child(ren)’s experiences”). The CSNA team
primarily analyzed three year’s worth of longitudinal data from the scholar and parent/family
surveys.
The first few CSNA team meetings were spent analyzing the data from the archival data
table and climate surveys. From the analysis, the CSNA team determined that the following areas
warranted further attention:
parent/family engagement
scholar academic perceptions of themselves and others
safety/bullying
attendance
sense of belonging
work readiness
out-of-school programming
special education transitional support
nutritional services
These initial focus areas served as the first iteration of “needs,” areas the team thought
the community school strategy could be leveraged in order to support scholar learning and
development, or, at the least, areas that warranted further investigation as a result of the archival
data analysis. The team decided that further investigation could be accomplished through
conducting focus groups.
Focus groups.
The NCCS needs assessment toolkit outlines surveys, focus groups, and interviews as
methods through which to collect further needs assessment data. Because most of the CSNA
team’s archival data came from surveys, and because of the team’s identification of survey
fatigue as a potential barrier, focus groups were chosen as the primary method through which to
24
collect new data. Another main reason focus groups were chosen was because of their alignment
with with the larger philosophy of community schooling, which is authentically hearing the
voices of stakeholders and building partnerships with them. Therefore, when designing and
conducting focus groups, the CSNA used a deliberative democratic dialogue model (House &
Howe, 2000) for authentically capturing participants’ perceptions and responses.
Early on, the CSNA team identified a list of stakeholders to participate in the focus
groups. Stakeholders are individuals with an interest in something’s success. Arguably, everyone
is a stakeholder in public education. However, due to limited time and resources, key stakeholder
groups with valuable experiences and perspectives able to provide the CSNA team with
important input, feedback, and guidance were identified. The stakeholder groups identified by
the CSNA team included parents/families; scholars; neighborhood residents and associations;
collaborative and community partners; school staff including administrative assistants, school
safety officers, custodial staff, social workers, and counselors; teachers; and administrators. It
was the intent to hear from as many individuals in these groups as possible in order to inform the
development of East’s community school strategy.
Focus group question design.
On this note, it can be said ‘the means define the ends.’ In other words, the process
influences the outcomes. For the CSNA team, this meant that the protocol for conducting focus
groups (Appendix C) was designed with much consideration, and the team spent the meetings
after the archival data review crafting focus group questions. One initial idea was to craft
questions based upon the nine goals of community schooling as defined by the NCCS, the same
goals that structure the archival data collection table. (e.g. “To what extent do you think scholars
live and learn in stable environments?”). Another idea was to craft questions based upon the
CSNA team’s initial findings from the archival data analysis (e.g. “Do you think East is a safe
learning environment? Why or why not?”). Ultimately, the team decided on a focus group
protocol with two main components: (1) participants were asked to broadly define what they see
as strengths/assets or barriers/challenges to scholar learning and development at both East and in
the surrounding community, and (2) participants were asked to respond to focused questions
based on the findings from the archival data analysis through a “gallery walk protocol,” where
participants rotated through writing responses to questions on different posters. This protocol
balanced participants’ ability to broadly define their own experiences while focusing on already
identified areas of need. The protocol was also flexible enough to adapt to the specific needs of
the focus group, such as age-appropriate language, group size, and time constraints. For example,
when administered to scholars, the language of “assets/barriers” was changed to “best,” and
when administered to very small groups, the gallery walk protocol was abandoned in favor of
dialogic responses. Despite these changes, the collected data was still based on the same
fundamental set of questions.
25
Focus group facilitation.
Focus groups were conducted by members of the CSNA team, each team member was
trained in how to conduct a focus group, and each team member was given a focus group
protocol to ensure fidelity in implementation. In most cases, focus groups were conducted by two
team members, one facilitator and one note taker. Focus groups lasted for a target time of 60
minutes. Most focus groups started with a brief five minute PowerPoint overview about
community schools, the needs assessment, and proceeding norms and expectations. Following
the introduction, the facilitator solicited discussion around the focus group questions or gallery
walk posters. Around half of focus groups were audio recorded with permission.
Table 8: Focus Groups by Stakeholders and Number of Participants
Focus Group # Stakeholder Group # of
Participants
1 Custodial (#1) 6
2 Clerical (#1) 6
3 Custodial (#2) 5
4 Clerical (#2) 5
5 School Safety Officer 10
6 Center for Youth 6
7 EMMA Neighborhood Association 17
8 East Collaborative Partners/Agencies 6
9 Upper School Administrators 3
10 Social Workers 8
11 Lower School Administrators 3
12 Lower School Counselors 3
13 Beechwood Neighborhood Association 1
14 Upper School Counselors 7
15 Lower School Scholars (#1) 13
16 Lower School Scholars (#2) 14
26
A total of 25 focus groups were conducted with a total of 216 participants. Focus groups
were conducted based upon the aforementioned identified stakeholder groups. Phone interview
calls (discussed below) were also made to parents/family members, with a total of 150 calls and
conversations with 33 families.
Family phone interviews.
At any given time, there are multiple competing demands placed upon stakeholders in
education, particularly for parents/families. In order to respond to competing time commitments
of stakeholders, and to be culturally responsive to the needs and demands of parents/families, the
CSNA team implemented a strategy of individual phone calls to solicit input from East
parents/families. The CSNA team decided that this process would be easier on families’ time
while also enabling more total family input. However, parents/families did also participate in the
Focus Group #19 and #23 (see table above).
The Community Coordinator developed a system for randomizing family phone numbers
based upon grade, so all grades 6-12 received equal representation and a random assortment of
families called. Responses from the calls were recorded anonymously, unless the parent/family
member volunteered their identity. Phone interviews were conducted by most members of the
CSNA team following a similar protocol used for in-person focus groups (Appendix D). A total
of 150 phone calls were made, 33 of which were successfully completed as feedback and
included as part of the analysis of this needs assessment.
17 Lower School Scholars (#3) 12
18 Lower School Teachers (#1) 14
19 Open Session for Parents/Community 11
20 Lower School Teachers (#2) 11
21 Upper School Teachers (#1) 4
22 Upper School Scholars (#1) 13
23 FACE Committee (i.e. CET Team) 22
24 Upper School Teachers (#2) 5
25 Upper School Scholars (#2) 11
(26) Parent/Families (Phone interviews) 33
27
Data Analysis
Each focus group and interview was analyzed and coded by the Community Coordinator,
with additional assistance provided by University of Rochester Warner School of Education
faculty and CSNA team members Dr. Nahoko Kawakyu O’Connor and Dr. Joanne Larson. A
Google Document shared with the CSNA team housed emerging themes and trends from the
data. A “first sweep” of data coded the focus groups nearly line-by-line. A “second sweep”
organized specific data points around emergent themes. For example, a theme of “collaborative
partners, programs, and supports” was identified as a commonly cited strength/asset of East.
Within that theme lay specific data from focus groups, such as “East offers lots of wrap-around
support for scholars (Focus Group 16)” or “East has lots of on-site programs (Focus Group 12).”
These themes (explored later in the findings sections) became the conceptual frameworks
through which the CSNA team considered the findings.
However, the entire CSNA team contributed to the data analysis as well. The largest
agenda item for most meetings was for CSNA team members to share relevant findings from the
notes recorded during focus groups and parent/family phone calls. The findings CSNA team
members shared were recorded in meeting minutes and used to inform both this report and the
Google Document housing the thematic data analysis.
Strengths and Limitations
There were several strengths and limitations throughout the needs assessment process.
Some of these strengths and limitations were anticipated and, therefore, able to be leveraged or
mitigated while others were only apparent during later stages of the process. This section should
be used to assist in the planning of future needs assessments, whether at East or elsewhere.
The first major strength of this process was the use of multiple data sources, including
qualitative and quantitative data that were collected and analyzed. Quantitative data allowed for
investigation into trends and included a wider sample, while qualitative data allowed for
stakeholders to provide a more in-depth account of their experiences and perceptions to be
shared. In particular, focus groups allowed the inclusion of participants whose voice may often
not be heard, and they provided a space for reflection and dialogue within a small group. Efforts
at developing relationships with different stakeholders increased participation in the needs
assessment process and further strengthened coalition building among different constituents.
The result of this mixed-methods, participatory approach that emphasized inclusion was a
comprehensive attempt to authentically understand strengths and needs from a wide spectrum of
stakeholders.
A second major strength of the process was that all CSNA team members were
responsible for reviewing the focus group notes and providing analysis at bi-weekly meetings.
The notes from these meetings were further included in the analysis and identification of major
findings and recommendations. This process was a collective process where CSNA team
members were involved in forming needs assessment questions, identifying stakeholders,
collecting data, analyzing and interpreting results, and identifying related recommendations.
28
A third strength of the needs assessment process were the members of the CSNA team. In
particular, the leadership of the Community Coordinator, who kept all the documents, protocols,
and notes organized and accessible to all members of the CSNA team, also kept the team
accountable for keeping to the timeline and coordinating the schedules for all the focus groups
and bi-weekly meetings. In addition, CSNA team’s parent/family and community representatives
were highly passionate about the project, consistently attending meetings and being prepared
with materials.
Lastly, a strength of the process was the types of relationships and structures East already
had in place that allowed for data collection with certain stakeholder groups to occur. For
example, East’s inter- and intradepartmental planning meetings made it simple to solicit
feedback from Lower School teachers. Additionally, relationships with neighborhood
associations and collaborative partners and agencies made it relatively simple to solicit feedback
about East’s performance because participants seemed used to being approached for input.
However, there were also a number of limitations. While the needs assessment process
followed a rigorous schedule and succeeded in including many new perspectives and increased
participation from different stakeholders, the process could have been strengthened with even
further participation from parents, scholars, and Upper School teachers. All three constituent
groups are large, diverse, and important, and the stakeholders who participated in the needs
assessment were largely represented by school staff. For a number of reasons, including the time
constraints of teachers and an imperfect contact system with parents/families, the aforementioned
three constituent groups were the most difficult to schedule focus groups with. On a similar note,
the CSNA team would have been enhanced with greater scholar and teacher representation.
While parent/family and community representation was excellent, there were times when more
scholar and teacher voice on the team would have been valuable.
Another limitation could be the design of the out-of-school/community strengths/assets
and barriers/challenges questions asked during focus groups and phone interviews. While the
intent of the focus group design was to not overwhelm participants with too many questions and
was to provide participants with a genuine platform for sharing their perspective, the general
nature of the focus group questions also resulted in some general responses of strengths and
barriers that were at times challenging to interpret. Participants’ responses to the aforementioned
questions about out-of-school/community strengths and barriers were often vague and required
considerable prompting.
Lastly, while the flexibility of the focus group protocol was seen as a strength, time and
logistical constraints also prevented the poster protocol from being implemented in every focus
group. Focus groups are useful for creating a safe space for participants to authentically share
their voice. However, they do not work as well when rushed for time or with too many or too
few participants. Given the time constraints of this entire needs assessment process, it was not
always possible to reschedule a focus group in order to facilitate the focus group under optimal
circumstances.
29
Despite these limitations, the CSNA team balanced considerations of the stakeholders’
time, input, and feasibility of completing the study. A potential approach to increase
participation by families and scholars may be to recruit more family groups to participate, or
attend sporting events where parents are present and potentially willing to provide input through
informal conversations.
Key Participants
The CSNA team consisted of people responsible for implementing the NCCS needs
assessment toolkit and for working collaboratively throughout the needs assessment process.
Team members were approached due to their knowledge of the school and the community, and
because their work is related to community schooling. In addition, most team members were
approached for their unique voice, meaning they did not already sit on East’s Community
Engagement Team (i.e. FACE Committee). The CSNA team met eleven times at East between
July and December for at least one hour per meeting.
After approaching several stakeholders, the following people agreed to be a member of
East’s Community School Needs Assessment team.
Table 9: Community School Needs Assessment Team Members
Name Role
Jason Taylor Community Coordinator, Chair
Angel Alicea Home-School Assistant
Maya Crane Connected Communities
Sarah Dickinson Center for Youth, Agency Coordinator
Shaquana Divers Parent
Julie Garcia Parent
Christine Gervais Parent
Natasha Green Parent
Daniel Hart Upper School Teacher
Nahoko Kawakyu-O'Connor University of Rochester
Joanne Larson University of Rochester
Marsha Peone Community Member
Vanessa Santiago Connected Communities
Tammy Tuttobene Senior School Secretary
Lorna Washington Special Assistant to East EPO Superintendent
Catherine Wilson Parent
30
Project Management
At the start of the project, a timeline was set to guide the needs assessment process. The
timeline was then presented to the CSNA team for feedback before coming to a consensus on the
feasibility and commitment to the project. This timeline guided the needs assessment process and
kept the CSNA team accountable towards deadlines.
Timeline
Table 9: Timeline for Needs Assessment Fall 2018
July 2018 Assemble Needs Assessment data and materials
Organize Needs Assessment Team
July 2018
August 2018
Kick Off Meeting
· What is a community school
· Purpose of the needs assessment
· Operational clarity
· Overview of timeline
· Review data
· Input for focus group, interviews, and recruitment
· Who else is missing from team?
August 2018 Focus Group: Clerical Staff (2)
Focus Group: Custodial Staff (2)
Focus Group: School Resource Officers (2)
Analyze FG data
September 2018 Focus Group: Parents (as many as possible)
Focus Group: Neighborhood Residents (2)
Focus Group: Community Partners (2)
Focus Group: Administration (1)
Analyze FG data
October 2018 Focus Group: Parents (as many as possible)
Focus Group: Scholars (2 LS + 2 US)
Focus Group: Teachers (2 LS + 2 US)
Focus Group: Teacher Leaders (1)
Analyze FG data
31
November 2018 Analyze Data
Conduct key informant interviews
December 11, 2018 Draft report Due
December 14, 2018 Report Due
· Presentation with Executive Team
32
Findings
The findings from this needs assessment are based on a combination of the Community
School Needs Assessment (CSNA) team’s archival data analysis as well participant responses in
focus groups and phone interviews. A list of findings is located in the appendix (Appendix E),
but key findings are outlined below. Findings are primarily organized around the main questions
asked during focus groups: (1) what strengths/assets exist at East, (2) what barriers/challenges
exist at East and what can we do about them, (3) what strengths/assets exist in the surrounding
community, (4) what barriers/challenges exist in the surrounding community and what can we do
about them? Findings are presented in four ways: the top three key findings from each category,
thematic findings from each category, additional findings that fell outside of each of the
categories, “big picture” conceptual tensions that arose from participants.
Key Findings
These key findings are the most salient findings from this needs assessment. The key
findings are organized around the main four categorical questions asked during focus groups and
phone interviews. These findings were the ones brought up the most often, by sheer quantity, by
participants.
Finding 1: What strengths/assets exist at East?
Collaborative partners, programs, and supports
○ Almost 100% of focus groups cited as assets the opportunities East provides
through different collaborative partners, programs. Responses included “wrap-
around support,” “service providers/collaborative partners,” “CTE programs,” and
“support staff.” Specifically, responses cited such supports as the dental and
health clinic, social workers, and culinary and optics pathways.
Staff is strong and supportive
○ Over half of focus groups cited as assets staff at East. Responses included that
“staff are ‘all in,’” that “staff go above and beyond,” that “staff are loving and
caring,” and that “staff go out of their way” for scholars. Specifically, responses
indicated that staff genuinely care about and do their best to support scholars and
that staff work well with each other as an “East family.”
Focus on relationships
○ A little less than half of focus groups cited as an asset East’s focus on relationship
building. Responses included that East is “more trauma focused,” has an
“emphasis on relationship building,” follows “restorative practices,” and that
“family groups helps to get to know one another.” Specifically, responses
indicated that the focus on relationship building helped support scholars’ social-
emotional needs and that it positively contributes to East’s culture and climate.
33
Finding 2: What challenges/barriers exist at East?
Internal and external communication
○ Over half of focus groups cited communication as a barrier or challenge at East.
Responses included that there’s a “lack of understanding of services provided,”
that it’s “difficult to communicate all Upper and Lower School opportunities,”
that “a better communication system with parents is needed,” and that “there’s a
need to share stories.” Specifically, responses indicated broadly that
communication could be improved, pointing both to potential systemic
improvements in light of extraordinary amount of information, and to improving
understandings of the realities of scholars’ lives and the work of teaching and
learning.
School-family relations
○ Over half of focus groups cited school-family relations as an area of improvement
at East. Responses included a “need to get more parents involved,” a “need to
hear more parent voice,” that “contacting parents is difficult,” and that more can
be done to “help families navigate the school system.” Specifically, responses
varied between seeing parents as an asset, as a deficit, or some combination of
both. Responses straddled between the school needing to do more to involve
parents/families who seemingly don’t want to be involved, and the school needing
to do more to enable parents who seemingly do want to be involved to be able to
share their voice. Ultimately, all responses agreed that more parent participation is
beneficial because “everything starts at home.”
Restorative practice refinement
○ Almost half of focus groups cited the need to refine restorative practices.
Responses indicated a need to “close the loop on the restorative process,” to have
more “trauma informed education,” to have “better follow through on discipline,”
and to have a “better disciplinary structure.” As mentioned, responses indicated
that restorative practices and the focus on relationship building at East are assets.
However, responses also indicated a need to refine restorative practices,
particularly for making everyone aware of what it means to be in a restorative
school and for teachers to have proper closure over scholar misbehavior.
Finding 3: What strengths/assets exist in the surrounding community?
Local neighborhood
○ Around half of focus groups cited local neighborhood associations, businesses,
and organizations as community assets. Responses included that “neighborhood
associations support the community,” that “local businesses want to help East,”
that “the local community supports East,” and that “local neighborhoods are
34
safe.” Specifically, responses indicated strong positivity in the surrounding
communities local to East.
Recreation Centers
○ Around half of focus groups cited recreation centers as an asset in the surrounding
community. Responses included that “recreation centers are a safe space” and that
recreation centers support “engaging after school programming.” Specifically,
responses indicated that recreation centers are a safe space for students.
Interest and Positivity around East’s success
○ Almost half of focus groups cited a renewed interest, positivity, or optimism in
wanting East to succeed as a community asset. Responses included that “people
want East to succeed,” that there is “pride in East,” and that there is “renewed
positivity and solidarity” surrounding East. Specifically, responses indicated that
East has a history of negative stereotypes but that things have turned around since
the start of the EPO.
Finding 4: What challenges/barriers exist in the surrounding community?
Poverty, violence, trauma, access to affordable housing, incarceration, substance abuse
○ 100% of focus groups cited some combination of negative or unhealthy systemic,
communal, or individual issues as a barrier to healthy scholar learning and
development. The CSNA team made the decision to combine all of these
individual examples into a larger category, one that is correlative if not causative
with deep segments of poverty and segregation in Rochester. Responses included
“scholars having to work to support family,” “parents having to work multiple
jobs,” “violence, gangs, and safety,” and “poverty and underemployment.”
Specifically, one focus group participant succinctly noted that, “our scholars are
tackling the challenges of the city.”
Transportation
○ Around half of focus groups cited transportation as a community barrier to East
scholars and families. Responses included that “transportation to and from school
takes too long,” that “it’s hard for scholars who live too close or too far to get
home,” that transportation is “inflexible,” and that “transportation can be scary,”
for scholars. Specifically, responses indicated that transportation to and from
school for scholars who live far from East and, ironically, too close to East
(because students who live less than a mile and a half from school are not
provided a bus) can be a barrier, in addition to lack of access to reliable
transportation for families who do not have a car.
Need for more community connections
○ Around half of focus groups cited a need for more connections and opportunities
between East and the community. Responses included “East needs better
community connections,” “more community connections are needed for scholar
35
service opportunities,” “East needs to be more of a community gathering place,”
and “there needs to be more work-based learning or employment opportunities for
scholars.” As mentioned, the number of collaborative partners, programs, and
supports that East has was identified as an asset, in addition to the local
community being cited as an asset. However, these responses urging for more
community connections indicate a need for East’s presence in the community to
be more visible, and for specific work-based and service-based opportunities to be
created.
Thematic Findings
The thematic findings are the full list of findings organized around the four main categorical
questions asked during focus groups and phone interviews. These themes emerged from the
coding portion of the data analysis. The findings are organized in order from most commonly
cited to least commonly cited.
Table 11: East Strength, Assets, Barriers, and Challenges
East Strengths and Assets East Barriers and Challenges
Collaborative partners, programs and supports Internal & external communication
Staff is strong and supportive School-family relationships
Focus on relationships Restorative practice refinement
Athletics Students who are disruptive
Family group Low academic rigor/preparedness
Low student-to-staff ratio Need to understand scholar’s out-of-school
lives
University of Rochester partnership Bad school food
Table 12: Community Strengths, Assets, Barriers, and Challenges
Community Strengths and Assets Community Barriers and Challenges
Local and surrounding community Poverty, violence, trauma, access to
affordable housing, incarceration, substance
abuse
36
Recreation centers Transportation
Interest and positivity around East’s success Need for increased community connections
East alumni Low neighborhood enrollment at East
Additional Findings
In addition to the strengths/assets and barriers/challenges identified above, several other
findings emerged that did not fit neatly into one of the aforementioned categories, including:
Benefit and need of sharing stories
○ The desire to increase sharing stories about people’s lives was included in around
a third of focus groups. These stories were specific to stories about people, with
the suggestion to provide a rich description of different daily lives to increase
understanding for a wider audience. For example, some of the stories that were
suggested included stories about scholars’ resiliency, daily life stories, stories
behind scholars’ absenteeism, stories about families supporting their scholars, and
stories about the different things that East staff do to support scholars’ success.
Need for rigorous curriculum, academic preparedness, and high expectations
○ About a third of focus groups mentioned the need for a rigorous curriculum to
help prepare scholars beyond high school, but experiences and level of exposure
to the current curriculum varied. Among the comments related to curriculum
included the need to hold scholars to high expectations and high standards,
holding scholars accountable for their work, understanding the process of learning
from mistakes scholars make, and reviewing and receiving feedback on
homework assignments. While participants did cite that East’s curriculum has
gotten more rigorous over time, there was still an expressed need to have scholars
prepared not just for meeting minimum graduation requirements but actually
being prepared for college or the world of work.
Alternative paths for scholars
○ Several focus groups also identified the need for more trade/vocational training
programs and robust alternative pathways for scholar success. While an increased
college-going culture at East was seen as a benefit, some stakeholders believed
that, for some scholars, having more alternative options could be hugely useful,
particularly with the high demand for skilled trades.
Mentoring
○ Mentoring was another theme that emerged from the focus groups. Stakeholders
who identified mentoring as a need indicated that scholars could benefit from
more mentoring to support school-to-home and home-to-school transitions, and
37
some inquired about the potential for engaging alumni and local elders in
mentoring scholars.
Conceptual Tensions
Several notable conceptual tensions also arose from the focus groups. These tensions
highlight various large and complex systems of thinking. These tensions do not necessarily prove
right or wrong but instead prove the existence of perspectival differences. School leaders and
decision makers should note these tensions when making policy decisions.
Tension between “kids who don’t care” and “kids who can’t care”
○ A number of focus groups brought up the notion of there being scholars who, for
whatever reason, are simply disaffected by and uninterested in the educational
system--in other words, these scholars “don’t care” about school. However, this
group of scholars was different than another group which “cannot afford to care”
about school because of more pressing, immediate needs (e.g. poverty, housing,
trauma, etc.). It was interpreted that the latter group may become the former if
their needs go unmet for a prolonged period of time. Participants struggled to
articulate the ways in which resources are or should be distributed to both of these
perceived groups of scholars.
Tension between holding scholars accountable and supporting scholars
○ Related to the previous tension, a number of focus groups brought up a tension
between the amount of “hand-holding” or support offered to and needed by
scholars. Participants simultaneously suggested that East’s scholars need a variety
of supports to succeed so that they can overcome systemic barriers, yet
participants also cited a need to hold scholars accountable so that they do not
become reliant upon others. This tension came up in respect to access of East’s
programs and services in addition to restorative practices and the disciplinary
process. It was unclear where the line should be drawn between support and
accountability.
Tension between family involvement as deficit vs. family involvement as asset
○ Family involvement was mentioned in almost every focus group. All focus groups
agreed that family involvement was important, but a tension existed in the
perception of family involvement. Some focus groups viewed family involvement
at East as a deficit, such as “parents are uninvolved in school” or “parents are
uninvolved in their child’s education.” Other focus groups viewed family
involvement at East more expansively, such as wondering how the successes at
East could have been made without the involvement of families. It was interpreted
that a tension exists with how family involvement is conceived, and that a
“chicken vs. egg” scenario exists between whether families are not involved
because they do not care or because East does not offer the right vehicles through
38
which families can make their involvement noticeable. Additionally, participants
noted a tension between when families should be held accountable versus East
being held accountable.
Tension between in-school messages vs. out-of-school messages
○ Several focus groups brought up a tension between the messages scholars receive
in school as compared to out of school. Focus groups noted that scholars are
receiving the right messages in school, such as with restorative practices and
healthy studying and living habits. However, these messages may contradict what
scholars receive outside of school, such messages that reinforce revenge or
retribution as an appropriate response to disagreement, or communities
reinforcing violence and drugs as opposed to studying.
The above sections highlighted the major findings from the diverse and wide-ranging
stakeholder engagement in the needs assessment focus groups. These findings emerged from
thematic coding and recurrences in the data. Not every data point was referenced, although there
is high confidence that the above findings reflect the most salient and frequent perspectives of
focus group participants. The next section of this report presents recommendations related to the
key findings.
39
Recommendations
The needs assessment process brought to light many possible recommendations for
improving East by leveraging the community school strategy. Sometimes recommendations were
explicitly made by participants during focus groups (e.g. “I think transportation’s a barrier for
scholars. I think there should be a designated late bus that scholars can ride to school if they miss
their first bus”). Other times, recommendations were intuited by the needs assessment team
through the data analysis (e.g. “Transportation has come up as a barrier a number of times.
Maybe a partnership with University of Rochester shuttles can be forged to transport scholars in
need”).
As noted in the methods and findings sections, the research was conducted and analyzed
along four main questions: (1) what strengths/assets exist at East, (2) what barriers/challenges
exist at East and what can we do about them, (3) what strengths/assets exist in the surrounding
community, (4) what barriers/challenges exist in the surrounding community and what can we do
about them? In making recommendations, the CSNA team chose to focus attention on the most
cited barriers/challenges, either at East or in the community, by focus group participants. This
resulted in the following most salient categories that focus group participants cited as challenges,
and, therefore, opportunities for improvement:
● Improve communication and sharing stories
● Build school-family relations
● Expand community connections
● Refine restorative practices
● Increase academic rigor and accountability
● Explore transportation alternatives
● Acknowledge systemic barriers and social inequalities
The following sections expand on these categories and propose recommendations for
them. Recommendations are just that; they are not meant as prescriptive fix-alls but opportunities
to pursue collaborative leadership and accountability around a specific, shared purpose in order
to help remove barriers to scholar learning and development.
Recommendation 1: Improve Communication and Sharing Stories
Communication was cited as a barrier or area of improvement in the majority of focus
groups. It was broadly defined as an issue. At times participants cited miscommunication or a
lack of communication within East regarding which programs and services are offered and which
person leads which initiatives. Other times it was cited as a barrier the school’s ability to contact
parents/family members through phone numbers, emails, and addresses that are often not
working or incorrect. There was a sense by most focus group participants that there were many
40
services, resources, and supports that scholars and families could tap into, but staff, scholars, and
parents/families may be unsure of what the resources are and how to access them.
The difficulty with this category is knowing when some suggestions are themselves the
result of communication issues or whether some suggestions highlight real needs. For example,
some focus group participants suggested that East needs more vocational training opportunities
for scholars. Yet East has long-standing and unique career pathway programs, including training
in culinary arts, information technology, biomedical & laboratory sciences, optics, vision care,
and teaching and learning. It was sometimes difficult to determine whether focus group
participants were unaware of existing resources or whether they thought additional resources
were needed on top of what is already in place.
Another noteworthy component of improving communication was the desired need to
“share stories.” In several focus groups participants commonly cited a need to share stories albeit
for different reasons, including “share stories of everything East does to support scholars,”
“share stories of scholar resiliency,” “share stories to show various reasons for non-attendance,”
“share stories about what everyday life is like,” and, ultimately, to “share stories for
understanding.” The needs assessment team made the decision to link these two general
categories together with the idea that sharing stories would improve communication.
What follows are recommendations for improving communication and the sharing of stories:
A.) Establish a central clearing house of information for each stakeholder group.
There lacks one central and mutually recognized “clearing house” for scholars, staff,
families, and community members to access information. Appropriate and timely access
to information is so broad and circumstantial that there is no simple solution, but there
could be recognized “clearing houses” for each group to reference. The purpose of these
clearing houses would be to establish the mentality that if an individual has a question,
they would reliably go to the same first spot to get an answer. For example, the following
clearing houses could be established for their respective stakeholders:
● Scholars - teacher webpages
● Staff - Shared “team drive” in Google Drive
● Families - East webpage
● Community - East webpage
It is easy for communication breakdowns to become a “catch-22.” For example, teachers
may not use their webpages because they feel like no one checks them, and scholars may
not check their teachers’ webpages because they feel like they do not update them. It is
important to re-establish trust to break these catch-22 scenarios, and that can start by the
“gate-keepers” of the aforementioned “clearing houses” keeping them up to date, and by
leaders creating expectations for stakeholder groups to use said clearing houses.
41
B.) More fully leverage existing internal communication assets.
East has useful means of internal communication through morning announcements, the
Eagle Eye (i.e. the school’s weekly morning show that is commonly shown in family
group), and the Eagle Express (i.e. the school’s monthly newspaper published by scholars
in Journalism class). However, these systems could be improved.
● Announcements. Announcements are used to deliver important school-wide
information for a common audience. However, the morning announcements are
difficult to hear because of both technical and social reasons. Some classroom and
hallway speakers do not play the announcements loud enough to hear. Also,
perhaps because of this, many students and classrooms do not pay attention to the
announcements, especially in the hallways. When the announcements come on
they should be audible and there should exist a common and serious expectation
to listen to them.
● Eagle Eye. The Eagle Eye report is a weekly news-style report currently filmed
with Upper School scholars for an Upper School audience. The report is
commonly shown in Upper School family groups, but all reports are also publicly
archived on East’s YouTube channel. However, it is unclear whether all family
groups watch the report to learn important school information. There should exist
a common expectation for faculty, staff, scholars, and parents/families to watch to
the Eagle Eye once a week. There’s also room for improvement on expanding the
Eagle Eye to the Lower School and including parent/family and community voice.
● Eagle Express. The Eagle Express is a monthly newspaper published by scholars
in Journalism class. These scholars act as journalists, interviewing and writing
about important happenings at East. There’s room to improve promotion of the
Eagle Express’ physical and electronic copies to everyone, in addition to
encouraging scholar-writers to interview parents/families and local community
members, too.
All three of these internal assets have promise but could be improved. If morning
announcements are listened to, the Eagle Eye is watched, and the Eagle Express is read,
then internal communication should increase.
C.) More fully leverage existing external communication assets.
East also has useful means of external communication through its calendar, social media,
and ParentCONNECT. However, these systems could be improved.
● Calendar(s). East has several calendars on its website. There is a general calendar
linked through the main page. Then there is a calendar specific to
parents/community members linked through the parents webpages. Then there is
an upcoming events calendar on the sidebar of the main page. All three of these
systems should be in communication with each other when possible, showing the
same information. If possible, these calendars should be able to be filtered by
42
event type, such as athletics, parent workshop, or holiday break. In addition, these
calendars should have the option of synchronizing with East’s social media sites
to blast an upcoming event reminder. Currently, there is no public “master
calendar” that acts as a reliable “clearing house” of information through the East
website.
● Social Media. East has a YouTube account called “East Upper and Lower
Schools,” a Facebook account called “East High School” and a Twitter account
called “@EastEPO.” All of these sites are updated frequently, but it is unclear
how often they are accessed. If possible, the handles of each of these accounts
should be the same. In addition, the handles of these sites should be printed on
school information, and they should be linked with other forms of electronic
communication, such as the calendar, and advertised through internal
communication like the Eagle Eye and Eagle Express.
● ParentCONNECTxp. ParentCONNETxp is a web-based application from
Pearson that allows parents/families to access timely school information about
their scholar’s academic progress, such as attendance, grades, and upcoming
assignments. The Rochester City School District uses the application, in addition
to a suite of other Pearson applications that link information. However,
parents/families have cited inaccuracies within the system, such as scholars
appearing absent when they are present, and inconsistencies within the system,
such as some teachers updating grades and assignments more than others. A team
should be organized to work collaboratively with the Rochester City School
District in understanding exactly how ParentCONNECT operates and which
systems can be tweaked within it. If working well, ParentCONNECT can act as
an aforementioned “clearing house” of information for parents/families. Yet as it
stands, it may be the case that ParentCONNECT is a system that school staff tell
families to sign up for with flippancy without truly understanding the ways in
which the information that ParentCONNECT communicates to parents/families is
useful or not.
D.) Designate a communications point person or committee.
Given the dynamic nature in which East is situated (e.g. a Lower School, an Upper
School, an EPO, within the RCSD, part of the NYSED, etc.), given the breadth of
services and supports provided by East (e.g. social workers, agencies, regents
preparation, athletics, community events, etc.), and given the varied means through which
information must be transmitted in culturally responsive, accessible, and relevant ways
(e.g. translations, social media, automated calls, newsletters, webpages, etc.) it would be
advantageous to designate at least a temporary communications point person or,
preferably, establish a communications committee. The communications committee
would be responsible for reviewing East’s communications assets and policies, making
43
recommendations to improve communication and align systems, and “propagandizing”
services and events.
E.) Break down silos of internal misunderstanding.
A common theme during focus groups was specific stakeholder groups showing
confusion--or interest--about what other groups of stakeholders do. East should host
departmental showcases, produce “a day in the life videos,” or create cross departmental
support teams, similar to adult family groups. These should be inclusive of all
departments, not just academic teaching departments. For example, the custodial team
should know what collaborative partners and service providers exist in the building,
clerical staff should know what kinds of teaching and learning are happening in the
classrooms they support, and teachers should know what a daily routine is like for the
school safety officers they rely on. The CSNA team got the impression that each
stakeholder group only knew a specific highlight of other stakeholder groups’ roles and
responsibilities within the East community. Given East’s focus on relationship building,
each staff or faculty member acts as an important conduit of information for each scholar.
Gaining understanding of what other colleagues do would increase communication and
be an effort at sharing stories.
F.) Refine method to collect and store parent/family contact information.
Several focus groups cited difficulty in contacting parents/families via phone, email, or
even at physical addresses. The CSNA encountered this difficulty too when attempting to
connect with families for phone-based interviews. Currently, updated family contact
information is housed in PowerSchool, a district application. When parents/families give
school personnel their contact information, that information should be correlated with the
information in PowerSchool and updated as necessary. Also, parents/families should be
incentivized, ideally eventually out of habit, to inform the school whenever their contact
information changes.
G.) Bring back the “Purple Locker.”
East has a conspicuous and unused purple locker outside of D132. The locker was once
used to anonymously submit accusations of bullying. In an effort to share stories, the
locker could be revitalized as an anonymous way for staff, scholars, or families to share
stories to be read on the announcements, performed on the Eagle Eye, or published in the
Eagle Express.
H.) Explore collaboration with UR CUES for “Story Telling.”
As part of exchanging information and communicating with one another, oral storytelling
was considered a useful medium to increase understanding of resources available in and
around school, and to increase access to programs and services for families and scholars.
44
Recruiting scholars, families, and community partners to be part of the storytelling while
respecting individuals’ privacies can be powerful ways of sharing information with peers.
The University of Rochester’s Center for Urban Education Success may be an
appropriate partner for developing high quality story-driven content that communicates
the realities of teaching, learning, and living in urban education.
Recommendation 2: Build School-Family Relations
Multiple focus groups noted the important role parents/families play in their scholars’
successes. Interestingly, the perspective on family engagement ranged from very positive by
administrators, teachers, scholars, and parents, to some negative perceptions that families are
uninvolved, whether due to competing commitments or due to lack of knowledge on how to be
involved. Some attributed East’s trend towards success mentioned earlier in Section 1 of this
report to families supporting their scholars and reinforcing the values of effort and learning at
home. Teachers mentioned positive relationships and open communication with families while
others felt that some teachers and staff needed a better understanding of scholars’ and families’
cultural backgrounds, out-of-school, and work lives.
While this category emphasizes the continued development of relationships between
families and school with a focus on students’ academic success, themes around providing
services to family also emerged from the data. Some of the recommendations listed in increased
communication (recommendation 1) and increased awareness of rigorous academic curriculum,
instruction, and learning (recommendation 5) overlap with building school-family relations.
A.) Expand the definition of family engagement, and create mechanisms to support engagement.
Family engagement is traditionally assessed through event-based engagement, such as the
number of parents/families in attendance at scholar-family-teacher conferences; however,
there are many other ways in which families can demonstrate engagement with the
school. In addition to staying abreast of their scholars’ academic progress, an expanded
definition of family engagement recognizes the support that families with competing time
commitments can provide to scholars at home. Suggestions for expanding the definition
of engagement and creating mechanisms to support engagement may look like this:
● Encourage conversations about what scholars learn at school through provided
question prompts
● Refine school-family communication, including sharing data
● Raise awareness of programs and services
● Continue to solicit family input through volunteering
● Provide easy mechanisms for parent volunteers including “one and done”
volunteer opportunities
● Involving families to participate in restorative practices
● Recognize family engagement at athletic events, award ceremonies, IEP meetings,
standing committees, and even when picking up a scholar for early dismissal
45
B.) Increase social events that bring families together, such as family fun nights.
While many parents and family members attend events at school related to their scholars’
school life, such as scholar-family-teacher conferences, scholar performances, and
athletic events, suggestions were made to host family fun nights during which families
can enjoy each other and socialize with other families who have scholars at East. Several
participants cited events East held in the past, which were similar to open houses and had
on-site music, barbers, and games. Further event ideas can be generated from
parents/families and scholars. Events that are not directly related to scholars’ academic,
musical, or athletic performances can then increase the reach to invite families to come to
the school building for academic events and can be a catalyst for developing new, and
progress existing, relationships.
C.) Provide and increase access to services for adults.
Focus group data showed that there may be a need for similar services to adults and
family members that scholars have access to through East. Some examples of increased
access and services included adult education, workforce development, social-emotional
learning, 7 Habits, restorative practices, mental health counseling, physical and other
health care needs, and CPR and basic first aid training. Effort should be made to
determine which of the aforementioned services can be made accessible to families.
Recommendation 3: Expand Community Connections
Around half of focus groups cited a need for East to have more connections with the
community. Some groups cited a desire for more local scholar service and employment
opportunities. Others cited a need to improve the perception of East’s community involvement,
with one participant noting that “I can see where the community’s come into East, but I don’t see
where East’s gone into the community.” Others noted a need for East to serve as a fully realized
community gathering place. Still others noted a need for East to leverage connections with
alumni.
A.) Increase scholar community service opportunities and a service-going culture.
Civic engagement is an important educational output. Not only do all scholars have to
complete 20 community service hours as a condition of graduation in 12th grade
Participation in Government class, but volunteering offers scholars another way to
network, learn, and grow through exposure and engagement. Several focus groups
lamented a societal shift towards a decrease in sense of and respect for community.
Currently, there is no systematized mechanism for scholars to engage in community
service. There may be opportunity for East to create a service-going culture by hosting
biannual days of service around Homecoming Week in the Fall and the city’s Clean
Sweep in the Spring. Additionally, an asset mapping of the geographic area surrounding
46
the school could be created in collaboration with neighborhood associations, scholars,
and parents/families to highlight local volunteer and employment opportunities. Lastly,
partnerships could be established with local elementary schools, such as School #33, and
the EMMA, Beechwood, and North Winton Village neighborhood associations to create
service opportunities for East scholars.
B.) Connect with local employers.
A number of focus groups, notably from Upper School scholars, cited a need for more
employment opportunities. A handbook could be made by East’s work-based learning
team that highlights partnerships with employers. A job board could be created in an
accessible location with updated postings of employment opportunities. Lastly, new
partnerships could be established with local organizations, such as Browncroft Garage or
Habitat for Humanity, in an effort to get scholars employment or work-based learning
opportunities.
C.) Designate an alumni coordinator or committee to connect with alumni.
Several focus groups cited a desire for more connections with East alumni, which has
also been an ongoing archival suggestion. As an old school with a rich history, East has
over 50 years worth of alumni groups. These alumni groups are mostly self-directed on
social media and have no formal connection with East. An individual or a committee
should be charged with creating an East alumni portal/program that solicits alumni
contact information, spreads information about current happenings at East, and invites
alumni to donate or volunteer in support of East. Once this programmatic infrastructure is
in place, alumni can be invited to and recognized at school events such as homecoming
and holiday concerts, they can be video interviewed for five minutes to create an
encouraging video for scholars to watch on the weekly Eagle Eye, they can be mobilized
to mentor scholars, and the resultant social capital from relationships with alumni would
trickle down to more employment opportunities to scholars.
D.) Establish East as a true community center.
The desire for East’s facility to be made more accessible to parent/family and community
member use came up in a number of focus groups. Related to this, several
parents/families and community members cited calling East to inquire when and if they
could use some of its facilities (e.g. the pool), but the staff members they talked with
reportedly did not have the answers. Indeed, in some staff focus groups staff corroborated
this information. First, the hours of and processes for using East facilities should be
understood by all staff, and that information should be posted accessibly on the East
webpage. Second, those hours and processes should be reviewed to determine if they
should be expanded. Policies should be set forth for at least each of the following areas:
pool, gym, weight room, track, tennis courts, auditorium, and computer lab. Also, as cited
47
in building school-family relations (recommendation 2), East’s services, such as the
health center and vision care program, should be reviewed to determine if those services
can be provided to East parents/families and community members.
E.) Report neighborhood events back to FACE committee.
In order to continue to develop and nurture the relationship between East and the
neighborhood associations, it’s important that this connection be institutionalized through
designating an East staff member responsible for attending monthly meetings at the
neighborhood associations, and having that individual briefly share information to and
from the association meetings. The goal of this connection is to increase communication
and also look for opportunities to collaborate. In addition to attending neighborhood
associations, the individual or individuals as part of the community school initiative
should have a presence in the neighborhood, including with local businesses.
F.) Develop scholar mentorship opportunities.
Several suggestions for East scholars to act as mentors were brought up as part of the
conversation to increase connection in the community. While mentoring has many
different components, scholars who are at East EPO can learn how to share best practices
for inclusion, mentoring, self-advocacy, and Leader in Me principles to incoming and
new scholars at East. In addition to mentoring incoming and new scholars, focus group
participants mentioned increasing constructive and healthy social interactions between
Lower School scholars and Upper School scholars with the intention to contribute to a
stronger community fabric where sense of belonging is increased through healthy social
interactions.
Recommendation 4: Refine Restorative Practices
Restorative practices were much discussed in focus groups, but in different ways. As
noted in the findings section, participants identified restorative practices as a strength
which have built relationships and improved East’s culture and climate. On the other
hand, participants noted a need to refine restorative practices. Teaching staff in particular
noted feeling left out of the restorative process, either because the restorative/disciplinary
loop is failing to be closed for them, or because their emotional and relational needs are
not being resolved with disruptive scholars. Additionally, there were recommendations to
increase understandings of the restorative and disciplinary process both for staff and
parents/families.
A.) Increase communication and closure loop on restorative practices.
East has a number of assets that support restorative practices, including professional
development, a Code of Conduct linked with restorative justice, parent/family workshops
on restorative practices, more on-site social workers and counselors, use of the ACEs
48
survey, group therapists, and collaborative partners that provide mental health support.
All of these examples are foregrounded by a larger effort to reshape the way scholar-
scholar and staff-scholar interactions occur. However, it is unclear how all of these
systems interact with one another, particularly when the disciplinary/referral process
occurs. Participants noted that the “restorative loop isn’t being closed,” including not
being invited to participate in restorative circles with disruptive scholars, or even being
informed of the result of a disciplinary/referral action. More clarification is needed
around what the “restorative loop” is, and policies should be examined to see if they are
being fully carried to completion.
B.) Increase support of teaching staff through the restorative process.
Teachers overwhelmingly noted feeling left out of being restoratively supported
themselves. Teachers reported sending scholars out of their classrooms for being
disruptive only to be sent back to class within the same period, supposedly because
scholars had a “restorative conversation” with another staff member. Teachers noted that
this process does not consider their needs and the damaged relationship between them
and the disruptive scholar. Indeed, many said that they have had to go out of their way to
schedule a restorative circle with a scholar and moderating staff member, feeling as if
they should not have to advocate out of their way for basic relational needs. Teachers also
reported difficulty with the accumulated stresses of the job, including having to try to
teach recidivistically misbehaving scholars. Related to this point and East’s “all in...all
the time culture,” the 7 Habits phrase “sharpen the saw” is often used pejoratively, as if
participants had adapted to a reality where sharpening the saw is collectively understood
to be useful but also collectively understood to be unattainable given the stresses of the
job.
C.) Increase understanding of restorative practice for all stakeholders.
All stakeholder groups continue to express confusion over what restorative practices at
East specifically look like, including the differences or overlaps between restorative
practices, restorative justice, and the disciplinary process. There continues to be debate
and confusion over the definitions of restoration, punishment, and consequences. Simple
and accessible propagandistic posters or infographics detailing East’s restorative
processes should be displayed. Families should be informed about the restorative
processes at East and how they can use restorative practices at home. Clear expectations
should be made to all staff and scholars about what it means to be in a restorative school.
There still exists a notion that staff think about scholars, or that scholars think
themselves, that scholars can get away with misbehavior because there are no
consequences.
49
Recommendation 5: Increase academic rigor, relevance, and accountability
Several focus groups, particularly teachers and administrators, cited a possibility to
increase academic rigor and raise expectations to more effectively prepare scholars for
adulthood. Participants noted that much effort goes into making sure scholars graduate
from high school by reaching the minimum graduation requirements, however,
participants also commented that the minimum requirements for graduation is literally the
minimum, and expectations and preparation for scholars should be higher than that.
While participants noted that the curriculum has gotten more rigorous and scholars are
being held to higher expectations, there is still a long way to go to ensure that scholars are
actually prepared to do college-level work, will be marketable when seeking gainful
employment, and are behaving in an appropriate and respectful manner.
A.) Articulate and make transparent what East’s curriculum entails.
Schools naturally face a tension in the myriad ways through which instruction and
learning can manifest themselves in different ways for different people. Schools also face
a tension in how transparent “everyday” classroom learning is made for parents/families
and community members. Everyone has an opinion about education and these opinions
are often informed from people’s own schooling experiences. It is not clear that
participants know what an “average” day in a classroom is like at East, and what kind of
instruction and learning happens there. This is further complicated by the prevalence of
educational jargon. Effort should be made to make transparent and understandable to
non-career educators the theories and practices of the teaching and learning happening at
East. This should help educators reflect on their own practices and help non-educators
understand the realities and needs of teaching and learning at East, which is also related
to the need of sharing stories (recommendation 1). Stories should be shared about what it
is that teachers actually do to teach. This is particularly important with parents/families
and community members who may have been out of school for some time because
teaching and learning today may be very different from their own experiences.
B.) Promote a culture that values learning.
Several focus groups cited a perceived deterioration of the value for learning and
education at East and throughout society, speculating a general lack of confidence in
future career trajectories with a high school diploma. Participants in the focus groups
expressed a desire for the school culture to not only focus on social-emotional
development but also emphasize the importance of education, learning, and knowledge as
powerful tools for increased opportunity. While the achievement goals of grades, passing
the Regents, and high school graduation are essential indicators, there is an opportunity
for leadership, including instructional staff, families, and community partners, to
emphasize the purpose of education and effort beyond these markers and highlight
learning itself is inherently relevant and valued.
50
C.) Hold scholars accountable to higher standards.
Several focus groups across different stakeholder populations expressed a need to raise
scholar accountability for higher standards. In particular, one teacher noted that “the
single biggest thing we need to do at East is hold scholars accountable to higher
standards.” One of the examples included changing the expectation of learning from
learning only during school hours to studying and learning after school, and having a
shared understanding that homework assignments are expected to be completed. Not
only does this continue the learning process at home, but it prepares college-going
scholars for the types of habits and dispositions required for success in college. Another
example is teaching scholars what it means to study, teaching study skills and habits, and
expecting scholars to review academic material outside of class in preparation for major
tests and assignments. In addition to raising academic standards, participants expressed a
desire for higher standards related to refining restorative practices (recommendation 4);
participants desired scholars being held accountable for their behavior, including
consistency and transparency, keeping in mind the tension between supporting scholars
and coddling scholars.
D.) Reflect on scholar identification of the effects of “disruptive” scholars.
In every scholar focus group scholar participants clearly noted the frustrating and
detrimental effects of some of their “disruptive” peers. Archival scholar climate survey
data also supports this claim. Without having a clear recommendation, it is worth at least
reflecting on this scholar claim and the extent to which the learning environment for
some scholars may be lessened by the actions of others. There may be an opportunity to
proactively use restorative principles and relationship building to help scholars take
accountability over their own actions by seeing how their actions affect others, even if
there actions are not specifically physically or verbally targeted towards their peers.
Behavior data should be used to identified targeted intervention for scholars who can
benefit from preventative and restorative practices in order to support their success while
simultaneously creating a conducive learning environment for their peers.
Recommendation 6: Explore transportation alternatives
Interestingly, focus group participants cited transportation as either an asset or a
challenge, indicating that the relative merits of transportation is highly situational. However, a
theme did emerge with participants across all stakeholder groups as citing transportation
difficulties for scholars and parents/families who live far from East and, ironically, very close to
East. The Rochester City School District has a school choice policy, meaning students from
around the district may enroll in the school of their choice, space willing. The district also has a
policy where students who live within a mile and a half of school are not provided a bus and,
therefore, are expected to provide personal transportation to school. As a result, students who
live very far and very close to school may have either long or unsafe or uncomfortable
51
commutes. School staff spoke about the difficulties of having scholars stay after because of
transportation issues, particularly Lower School scholars who would be forced to take a
potentially intimidating city bus back home as opposed to their normal yellow school bus. Some
participants also indicated that some parents choose for their child to attend a school farther from
their home so that they can use the transportation system provided by the RCSD rather than
having their child walk through potentially unsafe neighborhoods.
It may be worth looking into alternative transportation options for students who miss
their first bus or have to stay after for school. Alternative options should be explored through a
partnership with Uber or Lyft. Vetted parents/families or community members could be
employed and tasked with transporting scholars. Alternatively, a partnership could be explored
with the University of Rochester’s shuttle service.
For scholars who live close to the school, there should exist an on-site scooter or bike
program. R Community Bikes is a local nonprofit that receives, fixes, and distributes used bikes
to the community, mostly for free. The organization also has several satellite locations, notably
at 441 Ministries in the Beechwood neighborhood. A partnership could be established with this
satellite location to secure transportation options for scholars who live local to the school.
Alternatively, this satellite location could be relocated to East, where space would allow the
bikes to be serviced year round, since the satellite location does not service throughout the
Winter months. Scholars could be taught how to care for the bikes, and they could hire them out
to cycle to and from school. This service could also be open to the general community,
increasing East’s presence as a community gathering place (recommendation 3).
Recommendation 7: Acknowledge systemic barriers and social inequality
When asked “what barriers/challenges exist in the surrounding community,” nearly all
focus groups overwhelming and unequivocally cited a variety of societal/systemic barriers,
including poverty, violence, trauma, lack of affordable housing, parents having to work multiple
jobs, scholars having to work to support their family or baby sit younger siblings, family
incarceration, substance abuse, and unsafe neighborhoods. Indeed, when one focus group
participant was pushed for more details in response to this question, the participant succinctly
stated, “I thought these problems were self-evident in our community.” Another focus group
participant noted, “Our scholars are tackling the problems of the city.”
It is the opinion of the authors of this report, and the CSNA team, that those two lines
capture the essence of the challenges and problems that exist in so many urban educational
environments: Students must take on a disproportionate amount of overwhelming challenges that
they did not create, and society at large has become complacent with the existence of those
challenges. Without the recognition of the systematic and systemic inequities that exist through
creating conditions of poverty and dehumanization, this study would not effectively constitute an
authentic needs assessment.
Schools are placed under pressure and myriad of demands; they exist in a constant need
to prioritize. In this context, one response to this is to say ‘it is not the job of a school to solve
52
problems for students such as unemployment, homelessness, and neighborhood violence.’ It may
not necessarily be the job of a school, but schools, whether they want to respond to those issues
or not, inevitably are affected because the students affected by those issues enter the school
building, walk through the hallways, sit in the classrooms everyday, and are part of the fabric of
a community of learners. The goal of schools to educate students to be life-long learners and to
prepare for the future assumes that students’ basic needs are presently met. By not
acknowledging and taking efforts to mitigate societal barriers that affect students currently,
schools reinforce inequality and hamstring student performance.
A second response is to say ‘schools do not have the capacity to solve problems for
students such as unemployment, homeless, and neighborhood violence.’ The authors of this
report do not disagree with that statement, but schools are in a unique position to make a
difference. Schools are and can be the central hub through which students’ quality of life can
improve through acknowledging and taking steps to mitigate societal barriers. This is one of the
fundamental premises of community schooling, to share resources for overcoming societal
barriers and to share accountability for tackling challenges collaboratively, inclusively, which
no singular party may have created.
These societal barriers/challenges that were brought up in nearly every focus group does
not have a clear related recommendation for the school. However, recognition of these societal
barriers and sharing accountability to address these inequities is a first step. As a school,
addressing the needs of the students through intentional partnerships, as has been done with
programs like an on-site food and resource pantry is a necessity. Implementing and further
refining restorative practices and trauma-informed practices is a start to recognition of the
challenges that students may face. In addition to direct support to students, all stakeholders
interested in the success of East and its scholars need to call out social inequalities and systemic
barriers when they see them restrict opportunities for student learning and development.
In addition to providing direct services to meet the basic needs of the students and
recognizing the societal barriers, school curriculum should strongly consider examining and
teaching the underlying forces that lead to systems of inequity and conditions of poverty. This
does not need to be mutually exclusive from preparing students for the future, instead, arming
students with the knowledge and critical thinking skills that is relevant to current events will
create a strong foundation for future success.
We recognize that a student is not wholly defined by the conditions of their upbringing
and not all scholars at East face the trauma of poverty or violence. East believes every East
scholar is capable of success, and together as a school, neighborhood, and community, we must
recognize and break down the societal barriers that inhibit student learning and development.
53
Conclusion
This report serves as East EPO’s second community school needs assessment. The first
needs assessment was conducted in 2014 during the establishment of the East EPO with the
University of Rochester. This second needs assessment was conducted between July - December
of 2018. The assessment followed the National Center for Community Schools needs assessment
toolkit. Findings include the results of an archival data analysis, 25 focus groups with 216
participants, and phone interviews with 33 East parents/families.
Recommendations are provided collaboratively from the insights of the Community
School Needs Assessment team that acted as the stewards of this entire process and from specific
recommendations made by focus group participants. Recommendations are meant with the best
intentions, not as a prescriptive fix-all. It is the hope of the CSNA team that the
recommendations will be seriously considered and, where relevant, plans of action will be put in
place in order to leverage East’s assets and to remove barriers to scholar learning and
development. These actions plans should be led and implemented by a team that shares
leadership and accountability of results—one of the key tenets of the community school strategy.
This report also serves an auxiliary function. This report is meant to communicate to a
general audience at least one version of the successes and difficulties, merits and challenges,
possibilities and disappointments, and, ultimately, complexities of teaching and learning in an
urban educational environment in 21st century America. We hope the reader recognizes that
there is no magic or fast solution that is implementable by one sole group to help students learn
and develop. Educational success is not only the teacher’s job, or administrator’s job, or
parent’s/families’ job, or scholar’s job--it is the entire community’s job. The community school
strategy of organizing school and community resources around student success is the closest
framework for what exists as a strategy to tackle the challenges in education, strengthen
community and neighborhoods, and lift up all students to reach their potential.
54
Appendix A: NCCS Needs Assessment Toolkit
55
56
57
58
59
Appendix B: NCCS Archival Data Collection Table
60
61
62
63
64
65
Appendix C: East Needs Assessment Focus Group Protocol
Community School Needs Assessment
Focus Group Protocol
Recruitment
1. Focus groups will be held by constituent group (e.g. families, Lower School teachers)
2. There will be at least two focus groups per constituent group
3. Appropriate members of the Needs Assessment team will work with the Community
Coordinator to schedule and recruit for focus groups. All team members will assist in
recruitment for family and community focus groups.
4. The ideal focus group size is 6-8 people. Unless there’s guaranteed attendance, it’s ideal
to invite up to 10 to 12 people to get 6 to 8 attend.
5. Have participants sign-in and note how many people are in the focus group. Consider
including notes about demographic information (sex, race, role, and relationship to East).
Facilitators
Two members from the Needs Assessment team will facilitate each focus group. One will
lead the discussion and the other will lead recording information.
Focus Group Best Practices
1. Thank everyone for coming
2. Explain the purpose of the focus group. Community schools is a strategy to support the
holistic needs of students. We are conducting a Needs Assessment to find out what
stakeholders see as our strengths, needs, and ways to improve scholar learning and
development.
3. Set grounds rules.
o Participants will do the talking
We want to hear from everyone
One person will speak at a time
We may gently call on you if you haven’t spoken in a while
o There are no right or wrong answers.
Everyone’s ideas and experiences are valuable
It’s important to hear all sides - including the positive and negative
It’s okay to disagree; it’s useful to hear alternative opinions
Even if we don’t agree, it’s important to show respect for one another
o What is shared in the room stays in the room
Please keep what you hear in the focus group confidential
We will summarize the focus group findings without identifying people by
name
4. Ask if there are any questions before starting
66
Protocol
1. 5 minutes – Introduction
2. 25 minutes – Open discussion on focus group questions
3. 20 minutes – Rotation through poster questions (4 minutes per question)
4. 10 minutes – Final questions and thoughts
Focus Group Questions
1. What is your name and relationship to East?
2. What do you think the greatest strengths or most valuable assets of East are?
What do you think are the greatest challenges or barriers scholars face at East?
What do you think would help scholars overcome these barriers?
3. What do you think are the greatest strengths or most valuable assets of the surrounding
community?
What do you think are the greatest challenges or barriers in the surrounding community
that prevent scholars from achieving success?
What do you think would help scholars overcome these barriers?
4. Do you think scholars and their families feel a sense of belonging to East? Why or why
not?
Poster Questions
1. What can we do to better support family involvement at East?
2. What can we do to improve scholar attendance at East?
3. To what extent is safety and/or bullying an issue at East? What can we do to create a
safer school or prevent bullying?
4. How confident are you in knowing what restorative practices are and how they’re
implemented at East? In what ways can restorative practices be better implemented?
5. What kinds of additional programs or services should East provide in order to help
scholars succeed?
67
Appendix D: East Parent/Family Phone Interview Protocol
Community School Needs Assessment
Family Phone-Based Interview Protocol
Purpose
We are conducting these phone-based interviews in order to hear from East
parents/family members what strengths/assets and needs/barriers they think exist at East
and in the surrounding community. Parent and family input is crucial, so we are
conducting these in addition to hosting a parent/family focus group on Wednesday,
October 24th from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. at the Thomas P. Ryan Recreation Center.
Best Practices
1. Follow the protocol on the next page! Be sure to introduce yourself to the
parent/family member using your title and that you’re on a team at East trying to hear
from others how we can make the school better. Let participants know that there are
no right or wrong answers, and that you simply want to hear what they have to think.
2. Many people perceive getting a phone call from an unfamiliar number as an invasion
of privacy. Also, many families perceive getting a phone call from school as bad
news about their child. Please keep these considerations in mind, and do your best to
be calm, welcoming, and hospitable. The first 20 seconds of a phone call are
important for not making the recipient feel defensive.
3. Gently probe participants in giving detailed answers: we want the “why” and “how”
in addition to the “what.” If a family member specifies teachers as an asset (that’s
great!), but see if you can get them to explain in what context East teachers are an
asset to them or their scholars. The same goes for the barriers they mention.
4. Your questions can vary from the protocol depending on how talkative and
explanative your participant is. Use your best judgement on which threads to pursue.
Remember, we’re doing this work to refine our Community School strategy.
5. Connect participants with other opportunities for involvement. If the participant is
very engaged and wants to share more, invite them to the in-person focus group on
Wednesday, October 24th from 6:00- 7:30 p.m. at the Thomas P. Ryan Recreation
Center. If you’re unsure how to respond to a question or if they want to talk more
over the phone, feel free to connect them with [email protected] or (585)
288-3130 ext. 2178.
68
Transcript Protocol
Hello, my name is ____________ and I’m a _______________ at ‘East High School.’ I’m on a
team of people trying to hear from others how we can make East an even better school. I have a
few questions to ask. There are no right or wrong answers, and I simply want to hear what you
think. Is this an okay time to talk?
Great, my first question is:
1. What do you think are the greatest strengths of or best things about East?
Thank you. My second question is:
2. What do you think are the greatest challenges or barriers your scholar faces at East?
We talked a lot about East. Now I’d like to ask you about the broader community:
3. What do you think are the greatest strengths or best things about the surrounding
community?
My last big question is:
4. What do you think are the greatest challenges or barriers your scholar faces in the
surrounding community?
Thank you taking the time to talk with me. If you’d like to share more in-person, we’re holding a
focus group from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. at the Thomas P. Ryan Recreation Center on Wednesday,
October 24th. … … … Goodbye.
69
Appendix E: List of Findings
1. East Strengths
Collaborative Partners, Programs, and Supports
Lots of support and resources for students
support staff
lots of programs and services
lots of resources and services
CTE programs
lots of programs and services
lots of service providers and partners
support from partners and service providers
lots of programs and collaborative partners
lots of counselors, social workers, programs (that are on-site)
CTE programs
CTE, Quest, Partners/service providers
Support
lots of support for students
wrap-around support
lots of support, social emotional, health resources
CTE programs and collaborative partners
Electives and CTE programs and partnerships
CTE programs and support
Lots of opportunities and service providers
Staff are the Right People
Family aspect among staff
staff genuinely care
staff members are supportive
staff have the right mindset
Administration is doing well
70
Staff has more teamwork and shared plan
teachers are highly accredited and skilled
staff has family feel and "all in" approach
administrative flexibility
staff are loving and caring
teachers care
teachers push students to full potential
staff are dedicated and go above and beyond
staff care and go out of their way
teachers and supportive and nice
Staff are excellent, supportive, helpful, trusting, on the same page
Staff work hard to make East scholar-centered
Staff are flexible and supportive of scholars
Focus on Relationships
relationships
more trauma focused (RP)
deep seeded relationships
social-emotional support
restorative practices
restorative practices
social-emotional support
social-emotional support and restorative practices
emphasis on relationships building
Athletics
Sports
Sports
athletics
athletic opportunities
sports
Athletics keeps students on track
Athletics
71
Family Group
Family Group
Family groups helps know each other
family group
family group good and bad
Lots of staff
low student-teacher ratio
low counselor-student ratio
low counselor-student ratio
lots of staff
University of Rochester
UR
UR
UR
UR
2. East Challenges
Communication Internal + External
internal miscommunication of what we have
communication from school to families
communication from school to community
communicating service provision
Getting family contact info
communication late or unclear for advertising
lack of understanding of services
not taking advantage of services because no understanding
communication barriers and confidentiality require
72
ensuring communication, even when uncomfortable
Placement process is broken + bad communication
Difficult to get family contact and documentation
hard to communicate all opportunities and US-LS
need better communication system with parents
Communication good and bad to families
Difficult to get accurate family contact information
Transportation Cost, Time, Scary
transportation
transportation scary and length
transportation time (and for adults)
transportation length and poor communication
transportation inflexibility
transportation long or no personal transport
scholars have to walk if live too close
hard to get students too far or too close home
transportation access and time
transportation takes too long
Need better afterschool transportation options
School-Family Relations
Uninvolved parents
parent disinvolvement
contacting parents is hard
need to get parents involved more
low parental involvement
more parent engagement needed
need to hear parent voice more
help families navigate school system
families help
families help
73
families help, but need better communication w/
families are an asset - everything starts at home
need better communication system with parents
families are an asset
Families feel involved and not involved
Need more family fun nights
Families are supportive
Restorative Practice Refinement
close loop on restorative practices
clarification on restorative practices
more trauma-informed education
close loop on restorative practices
have people understand their restorative work
difference between discipline and consequences
teachers aren’t being taken care of restoratively
close loop on restorative practices
need better enforceable boundaries and close restorative loop
better follow through on discipline
need better disciplinary structure
need better support for teachers to deal with problems
Need to close restorative loop with teachers
Students who are disruptive
Some students are disruptive
distracting students
distracting students
disruptive students
disruptive students
distracting scholars
Distracting and disruptive students
Students are disruptive
74
Need to Increase Academic Rigor/Preparedness
scholars not being prepared for high level work
increase academic rigor
scholars come to us academically below grade
need higher academic rigor
need higher academic rigor
need to make academic rigor more challenging
Disconnect of Understanding Scholar's Lives
staff don't understand students' lives
teachers don't know student backgrounds
teachers need better relationships with students
Food
Food is bad
Food is jail food
Food is wasted and bad
Food is bad
Food is bad
Parts of school are unclean
Parts of school are unclean
parts of school are unclean (bathrooms)
Parts of school are unclean
3. Community Strengths
Recreation Centers
recreation centers
recreation centers
75
recreation centers
recreation centers
recreation centers
recreation centers
recreation centers
recreation centers
recreation centers
recreation centers
recreation centers
Local Community
Neighborhood associations
Beechwood
Beechwood/EMMA
Beechwood/ #33
local businesses
neighborhood associations
Beechwood neighborhood
local businesses want to help
local businesses want to help
Local community supports East
Local community has a lot of assets
Interest and Positivity
people want east to succeed
People want East's success
Pride and positive energy
pride in East
pride in East
Solidarity in wanting East to succeed
76
4. Community Challenges
Violence
violence
gang violence
violence
safety and violence
violence
violence
safety
fighting
violence, fighting, criminality
crime
violence, gangs, safety
scary neighborhood, violence
Violence and safety
Fighting, violence, and unsafe neighborhoods
Economic Inequality/Poverty
Economic inequality
poverty
poverty
poverty
poverty
elementary school inequality
poverty
poverty
poverty, parents working many jobs
underemployment
77
Affordable Housing
affordable housing
homelessness
housing
transiency
homelessness
housing help
housing insecurity
homelessness
Adequate housing
Trauma
Trauma
Trauma
Trauma
Trauma
Trauma
Scholars Having to Support Family
scholars having to support family
scholars having to support family
scholars having to support family
Family Incarceration
incarceration
incarceration
incarceration
Substance abuse
Intoxication
Drugs
Substance abuse
78
Drugs
More East Connections with Community
community connections for scholar service
East needs to be more involved in community
East needs more community connections
push more community connections
more work-based learning/connections to local employers
community connections for scholar service
connections with local community
expand East connections with community
East needs to be community center/gathering place
East needs to have better community connections
East needs to be a true community center
School-Community Message Difference
Community teaches retribution
East teaches restorative, not punitive
different expectations home-school
Community doesn’t support learning, school, education
Neighborhood Attendance
Low % of local kids attend East
kids coming from all over city
Need more neighborhood students to attend East
79
References
House, E. R. and Howe, K. R. (2000), Deliberative democratic evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation, 2000: 3-12. doi:10.1002/ev.1157
Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L. (2017). Community schools as an effective school
improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
National Coalition for Community Schools (2011). Needs Assessment Tool Kit. New York,
NY: Children’s Aid Society.
National Coalition for Community Schools (2011). Building Community Schools: A guide for
action. New York, NY: Children’s Aid Society.
Contact
Questions and correspondence about this report can be directed to Jason Taylor, Community
Coordinator, at [email protected] or (585) 288-3130 ext. 2178.
![SMALL GROUP HEALTH BENEFITS CERTIFICATE GLD EPO …...SMALL GROUP HEALTH BENEFITS CERTIFICATE GLD EPO Community $10/$20 AmeriHealth certifies that the Employee named [below] is entitled](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5e34959651f530576139cb29/small-group-health-benefits-certificate-gld-epo-small-group-health-benefits.jpg)
